PM ( Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

At the permission stage, the court asks whether the proposed appeal has a sufficient prospect of success. It does not decide the asylum claim on its merits. In assessing credibility, a tribunal must distinguish between whether an account is generally likely and whether it is reasonably possible in the claimant’s particular circumstances. An apparent error about the identity or status of a security organisation may be material if it could have affected the assessment of a central part of the account. Where the consequences of the alleged events are potentially life-threatening, the tribunal should scrutinise adverse credibility reasoning with particular care.

The appellant, an Iranian national, challenged an Immigration Judge’s rejection of his account of his father’s death, his mother’s alleged exploitation by a security official, and his own involvement in the official’s death. The Senior Immigration Judge accepted that the Immigration Judge had wrongly treated Ettela’at as distinct from the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, but considered that error immaterial and did not order a second-stage reconsideration. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proposed appeal had a sufficient prospect of success. Lord Justice Sedley granted permission.

1. Disposition and appellate stage. The application for permission to appeal was granted. The court was not deciding whether the appellant should receive asylum, nor was it undertaking the full merits reconsideration that would arise at a second stage.
2. Credibility and possibility. A fact-finder assessing credibility must distinguish between whether conduct is generally likely and whether it is reasonably possible in the particular circumstances of the claimant’s account. The Immigration Judge’s reasoning about the alleged temporary marriage between the security official and the appellant’s mother arguably asked the wrong question.
3. Inferences from secrecy. The appellant’s inability to describe the political beliefs or activities that had led to his father’s detention and death did not, without further reasoning, establish that the account of the death in custody was untrue. In a repressive state, a dissident may conceal such matters from family members. The finding that the father’s secrecy was inherently unlikely was therefore arguably perverse, although the court did not finally determine the issue.
4. Materiality of the organisational error. The error concerning the relationship between Ettela’at and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security was capable of affecting the assessment of whether the alleged conduct by the official was plausible. Given the potentially life-threatening consequences of the claim, particular vigilance was required. The quality of the adverse credibility findings might need to be reconsidered if that issue was reached, although some findings appeared strong and some explanations were tenable.
5. The reference to reliance on section 8 as a potentially constitutionally doubtful constraint on judicial fact-finding was not determinative. The court indicated that remission for continued reconsideration might be appropriate, but the operative order was confined to granting the application.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2009] EWCA Civ 1415, Lord Justice Sedley granted permission to appeal. The asylum merits were not determined.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The Immigration Judge rejected the appellant’s account. On first-stage reconsideration, the Senior Immigration Judge accepted an error concerning the identity of the security organisation but held that it had no effect, so reconsideration did not proceed to a second stage. AIT No: AA/10147/2008.